## Facts

- Anthony Munoz interviewed for work at Kaiser Steel Corporation’s coke plant in Fontana, California, while living in Texas with his family.
- During the interview, a plant superintendent “tentatively” hired Munoz subject to management approval.
- Munoz was told he would be trained “for at least three years” in plant operations; he understood this as a promise of employment for at least three years.
- After management approval, Munoz accepted the job, moved to California, and rearranged his affairs in reliance on the job opportunity (including selling his Texas home and buying a home in California).
- Munoz signed employment-related documents (including an employment application and a patent agreement), but none stated a fixed term of employment.
- About six months after starting, Kaiser laid Munoz off.
- Munoz later wrote a letter to Kaiser’s president complaining about the termination and referencing earlier discussions, but no writing set out a three-year minimum employment term.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral promise of employment for a minimum of three years was unenforceable under California’s statute of frauds because it could not be performed within one year and lacked a sufficient writing.
2. Whether the trial court properly granted nonsuit on Munoz’s fraud and deceit claim where he alleged promissory fraud (a promise made without intent to perform) based on the same oral promise.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Kaiser on the breach-of-contract claim.
- The court held the alleged oral agreement for at least three years’ employment fell within the statute of frauds and no collection of writings supplied the missing essential term.
- The court reversed the nonsuit on the fraud and deceit claim.
- The court held Munoz’s opening statement and stipulated exhibits were sufficient to state a claim for promissory fraud seeking tort damages (not enforcement of the unenforceable contract).
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the fraud claim.

## Legal Principles

- An oral agreement that, by its terms, cannot be performed within one year is unenforceable unless evidenced by a sufficient writing signed by the party to be charged.
- A promise of “at least” a multi-year employment term (e.g., a minimum of three years) is, by its nature, incapable of full performance within one year and falls within the statute of frauds.
- Documents must contain the essential contract terms to satisfy the statute of frauds; employment-related papers that omit a minimum term do not supply the required memorandum.
- Reliance acts such as relocation and related expenditures do not, without a sufficient writing, make an otherwise barred multi-year oral employment contract enforceable.
- Promissory fraud is actionable when a defendant makes a promise without present intent to perform, intending to induce reliance, and the plaintiff reasonably relies and is damaged.
- The statute of frauds bars contract enforcement but does not automatically bar a tort claim for promissory fraud seeking reliance-type damages based on deceit rather than the benefit of the unenforceable bargain.
- A nonsuit is improper if, taking the plaintiff’s opening statement and admitted materials as true and drawing favorable inferences, the plaintiff has stated facts that could support a verdict.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the statute of frauds to defeat an alleged oral minimum three-year employment contract for lack of a sufficient writing, but held that the same alleged promise could support a separate promissory fraud claim, reversing the nonsuit and remanding for trial on the tort theory.


Munoz v. Kaiser Steel Corp., 156 Cal. App. 3d 965, 203 Cal. Rptr. 345 (Ct. App. 1984)